Supreme Court says DuPage man must register as sex offender

Article continues below, first the unfair appellate court decision (See Rule 606(c) Appeal motion dismissed, not as untimely just dismissed). This lower appellate court decision was upheld by the Illinois Supreme court HERE:

12-12-2012 Illinois:

People v Bailey

On March 14, 2007, defendant, Christopher B. Bailey, entered an open guilty plea to the offense of criminal sexual abuse, and the trial court sentenced him to 300 days, with credit for time served. On October 7, 2010, defendant filed a motion to vacate his plea and sentence as being void. The State filed a response, arguing against the motion, but it did not challenge the timeliness of the motion. The trial court denied the motion on January 28, 2011.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal on February 25, 2011, appealing the denial of his motion to vacate his plea and sentence. He raises the following issues:

• (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction (and therefore this court has jurisdiction) to rule on his untimely motion to vacate, pursuant to the revestment doctrine, and
• (2) whether the cause must be remanded for further proceedings on his motion because his trial counsel failed to file a certificate of compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006).

The State responds that the trial court was not revested with jurisdiction and thus this court lacks jurisdiction.
We agree with the State and dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The offense to which defendant pled guilty arose from consensual sex between the 17–year–old defendant and his 16–year–old girlfriend. See 720 ILCS 5/12–15(c) (West 2006). The State requested, among other things, that the trial court sentence defendant to two years of sex offender probation and order defendant to undergo a sex offender evaluation, to register as a sex offender, and to submit to HIV and STD testing.

After the trial court sentenced defendant, an unidentified speaker, presumably either defense counsel or the prosecutor, asked: “Judge, is there any sentence regarding [sex offender] registration?” The judge replied: “No[,] * * * I think my sentence was fair and appropriate based upon what's going on.

He's going to be on mandatory supervised release on the parole anyway.” The court then determined that defendant had been incarcerated since September 2006 and stated, “we have plenty of time to * * * handle this another way.” Defendant acknowledged that he had read a notice of his appeal rights, discussed those rights in great detail with his counsel, understood them, and had no questions about them. Defendant did not file any timely postjudgment motions following sentencing.

... ... ...

---

Continuation of Article date 2-6-2014
A DuPage County man has to remain on the state sex offender registry after his bid to remove himself was rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court Thursday.

Christopher Bailey of Clarendon Hills pleaded guilty in 2007 to sexual assault involving his 16-year-old girlfriend when he was 17.

Bailey, now 25, argued the judge in the original case told him he didn't have to register as a sex offender. But when he was forced to do so in 2010, Bailey asked that his original sentence be tossed out.

The Supreme Court Thursday voted unanimously to reject that request, calling it "untimely." The court ruled that too much time had passed between Bailey's sentencing and his bid to overturn it.

"We're pleased that the court's decision clarifies a specific area of Illinois law" concerning the timeliness of cases like this one, said Maura Possley, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office.

Bailey is being held in DuPage County Jail, having been charged with failing to register as a sex offender. His attorney, Jaime Montgomery, said Bailey doesn't have further options for appeal. ..Source.. by Marty Hobe